CB vs JPM Stock Comparison
CB currently leads JPM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality, while JPM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CB and JPM?
CB leads the current stock comparison as Chubb Limited, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chubb Limited vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
CB leads
CB leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors JPM on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CB, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Chubb Limited
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CB over JPM, 62 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. CB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while JPM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JPM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CB today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Chubb Limited and JPMorgan Chase & Co. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CB and JPM against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality60 vs 46CB +14
- Momentum74 vs 61CB +13
- Value53 vs 44CB +9
- Risk Resilience63 vs 69JPM +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CB. CB’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; JPM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
CB's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CB and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CB (Chubb Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
CBCB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CBCB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CBCB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
CBCB on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
JPMJPM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CB, analyst targets favor JPM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CB | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.7% | +10.7% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.3% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CB | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.33% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.090 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.820 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #273 | #120 |
JPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.04% a year against CB's 4.33%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CB | 62 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | JPMon balance | revenue growth 2.4% vs -7.6%; TTM ROE 15.1% vs 17.9%; gross margin 42.7% vs 63.2%; operating margin 17.1% vs 28.2% — JPM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CB | Value 53 vs 44 |
| Technicals | CB | Price vs 50-day 6.3% vs -2%; vs 200-day 6.6% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 63 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside -2.7% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CB and JPM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on CB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CB +9
- 62 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- CB +14
- 64 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- CB +9
- 53 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 52 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when CB moved ahead of JPM.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
Only CB
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
JPM is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.51%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.9%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to CB's edge.
- 2JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
JPM leads on balance| Metric | CB | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.4% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -0.7% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 42.7% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 17.1% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.1% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.26 | 3.32 |
Performance
CB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CB | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.3% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.1% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 13.9% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.1% | 12.9% |
Technicals
CB has the stronger structure| Metric | CB | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.8 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 27.7 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.3% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.6% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CB | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.41 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.22 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.11 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -10.5% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CB or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against JPM's 53. The edge comes from quality and momentum. JPM is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is CB or JPM the better buy right now?
CB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CB over JPM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CB leads Quality by 14 points; CB leads Momentum by 13 points; CB leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CB or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply -2.7% upside for CB and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors JPM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CB. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CB or JPM?
CB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, CB or JPM?
CB on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, CB or JPM?
CB on the Momentum factor, by 13 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, CB or JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 6 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CB more profitable than JPM?
JPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 42.7% vs 63.2%; operating margin 17.1% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 15.1% vs 17.9%.
Is CB's lead over JPM getting stronger or weaker?
CB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when CB moved ahead of JPM.
What would change the CB vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JPM closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to CB's edge; JPM's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CB and JPM?
CB: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. JPM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on CB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CB and JPM with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.